mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010661.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "673",
    "date": "06/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 673 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 3 victims have a right to be heard in connection with sentencing under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). With respect to all other victim impact statements, which were not solicited by the Government, the Government is not asking the Court to make any factual findings about these individuals at sentencing or to consider these statements when weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, in light of the Court's \"largely unlimited\" discretion \"as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come,\" United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up), the Court may accept these statements as part of the record at sentencing. The Government defers to the Court as to whether and in what form it wishes to accept statements from these individuals. Finally, the Government opposes the redaction of any victim impact statements. The defendant has not justified her redaction requests under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent there is a privacy interest at stake in these documents, it belongs to the victims, who are not seeking to file these letters under seal. The defendant gestures at a due process interest, but the decisionmaker at sentencing is the Court, who will be able to review the redacted portions and evaluate them to the extent the Court thinks them useful. No due process interest is protected by withholding victim impact statements from the public. 2 DOJ-OGR-00010661",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 673 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "victims have a right to be heard in connection with sentencing under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). With respect to all other victim impact statements, which were not solicited by the Government, the Government is not asking the Court to make any factual findings about these individuals at sentencing or to consider these statements when weighing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, in light of the Court's \"largely unlimited\" discretion \"as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come,\" United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up), the Court may accept these statements as part of the record at sentencing. The Government defers to the Court as to whether and in what form it wishes to accept statements from these individuals.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the Government opposes the redaction of any victim impact statements. The defendant has not justified her redaction requests under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent there is a privacy interest at stake in these documents, it belongs to the victims, who are not seeking to file these letters under seal. The defendant gestures at a due process interest, but the decisionmaker at sentencing is the Court, who will be able to review the redacted portions and evaluate them to the extent the Court thinks them useful. No due process interest is protected by withholding victim impact statements from the public.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010661",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "673",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010661"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing victim impact statements and redaction requests. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}